**
The British government faces mounting scrutiny following the disclosure of extensive documents detailing Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. This development has prompted calls for clarity regarding the vetting process that led to Mandelson’s appointment as the UK ambassador to the United States in December 2024. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has confirmed he was aware of Mandelson’s connections to Epstein prior to the appointment, stating that the former peer misled him about the nature of their relationship.
Starmer’s Acknowledgment of Mandelson’s Past
In a revealing statement on Wednesday, Starmer admitted to having knowledge of Mandelson’s longstanding association with Epstein before endorsing his ambassadorship. Reports had already suggested that Mandelson maintained contact with Epstein after the financier’s conviction for sex crimes, a fact that became increasingly scrutinised after Mandelson was dismissed from his role in September. A source from Downing Street asserted that Mandelson had “lied repeatedly” to the Prime Minister about his links with Epstein, underscoring the severity of the situation.
“Peter Mandelson hid information that has since come to light and portrayed Epstein as someone he had minimal interaction with,” the source said. This revelation has sparked questions about the integrity of the vetting process that preceded Mandelson’s appointment.
The Vetting Process Explained
Mandelson’s vetting comprised a two-part procedure. Initially, a “due diligence” review conducted by the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team flagged concerns about Mandelson’s history with Epstein, including overnight stays at Epstein’s residence and ongoing friendship after the financier’s imprisonment.
Starmer reportedly requested Mandelson to answer three critical questions related to these concerns: why he continued to associate with Epstein post-conviction, whether he had stayed at Epstein’s home during his incarceration, and his connections to a charity associated with Epstein’s confidante, Ghislaine Maxwell. It appears that Mandelson’s responses were deemed satisfactory at the time, leading to his eventual appointment.
The second phase of the vetting, known as developed vetting (DV), entailed a thorough examination of sensitive matters, including financial and personal history. This confidential phase is designed to evaluate the integrity of the individual and assess potential vulnerabilities to coercion.
Unanswered Questions Surrounding the Outcome
The specifics of the DV process remain largely undisclosed. Traditionally, the outcomes of this evaluation are not shared publicly, nor are they disclosed to political figures. Hence, the nature of any mitigations or concerns identified during the vetting process remains unclear. Despite Mandelson’s subsequent ambassadorship, it is uncertain whether any reservations were noted or acted upon.
Amidst the growing scrutiny, No 10 has expressed confidence in the vetting procedures. Reports indicate that officials did not request access to Epstein’s extensive document trove before Mandelson’s appointment and have consistently avoided inquiries regarding whether such a request was ever made.
Labour MPs have privately voiced concerns regarding what they perceive as a lack of diligence from No 10. Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Conservative Party, has been vocal in her criticism, declaring during Prime Minister’s Questions that Starmer could not absolve himself from responsibility. “He did know, it was on Google,” she stated. “If the Conservative research department could uncover this information, why couldn’t No 10?”
Why it Matters
The situation surrounding Peter Mandelson and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein raises significant questions about accountability and transparency within the UK government. As revelations continue to unfold, the implications for Starmer’s leadership and the integrity of the vetting process are profound. This incident not only impacts the credibility of those involved but also influences public trust in governmental oversight mechanisms. As scrutiny intensifies, the need for clarity and accountability becomes increasingly urgent, highlighting the challenges leaders face in navigating complex associations and the consequences of oversight failures.
